Q: Are caucuses an effective method of selecting a presidential nominee?

"I think having a variety of primary contests is healthy for the system."

"Grassroots are always important."

"The anonymity of the polling machine is a treasured [principle] of democracy, yet the public affirmation of the caucuses forces candidates into personalizing their requests for support. It's a tradition we should keep."

"I like the historical nature and the intimacy of them."

"Smaller states take the responsibility seriously and spend the time watching, interviewing, and evaluating candidates for the rest of us."

No

"Caucuses contribute to the polarization of politics. The only Dems who attend are very liberal, and the Republicans who participate are very conservative."

"They're insane free-for-alls. People should not have to make their vote public and in front of their friends and neighbors."

"Caucus results often do not reflect the will of the people or a party, producing candidates that are more extreme while often disenfranchising people that can't physically attend."

"Way too small a forum. While we are at it—why are two of the whitest states in America (Iowa and NH) so disproportionately important in the nomination process?"

"Too few people, too many radicals."

"Having been in Iowa every four years since puberty, the clear answer is NO."

"They're a joke. The Iowa caucus is not helping democracy at all."

Q: Are caucuses an effective method of selecting a presidential nominee?

"I think having a variety of primary contests is healthy for the system."

"Grassroots are always important."

"The anonymity of the polling machine is a treasured [principle] of democracy, yet the public affirmation of the caucuses forces candidates into personalizing their requests for support. It's a tradition we should keep."

"I like the historical nature and the intimacy of them."

"Smaller states take the responsibility seriously and spend the time watching, interviewing, and evaluating candidates for the rest of us."

No

"Caucuses contribute to the polarization of politics. The only Dems who attend are very liberal, and the Republicans who participate are very conservative."

"They're insane free-for-alls. People should not have to make their vote public and in front of their friends and neighbors."

"Caucus results often do not reflect the will of the people or a party, producing candidates that are more extreme while often disenfranchising people that can't physically attend."

"Way too small a forum. While we are at it—why are two of the whitest states in America (Iowa and NH) so disproportionately important in the nomination process?"

"Too few people, too many radicals."

"Having been in Iowa every four years since puberty, the clear answer is NO."

"They're a joke. The Iowa caucus is not helping democracy at all."

Q: Are caucuses an effective method of selecting a presidential nominee?

REPUBLICANS (88 votes)

Yes: 25%No: 75%

Yes

"Truly good candidates win whether caucuses or primaries are used."

"The best thing about the caucuses is that candidates cannot escape direct interaction with voters. TV ads and fancy speeches matter less than direct appeals."

"Being president requires extraordinary management skills. If you cannot win a caucus, you ought not to be wasting our time."

"A bad idea almost by definition. Caucuses cater to the smallest sliver of both parties—to win elections you need to appeal to the broadest group possible."

"They're a race to the bottom in terms of intelligent debate."

"No. It's the modern-day equivalent of smoke-filled rooms."

"Too easily gamed, and you have to over-expend resources. Memo to candidates: Skip Iowa and Nevada. Nevada with a 10 percent participation rate should be dropped from the Republican carve-out [for early states]. It is a worthless contest."

"They cost a lot of money and reach only a very small number of people."

"The time has passed for the caucus system. It has become a tool for party extremism."

"We need a nationwide primary, and may the best man or woman win in one day..."

"A bad idea almost by definition. Caucuses cater to the smallest sliver of both parties—to win elections you need to appeal to the broadest group possible."

"They're a race to the bottom in terms of intelligent debate."

"No. It's the modern-day equivalent of smoke-filled rooms."

"Too easily gamed, and you have to over-expend resources. Memo to candidates: Skip Iowa and Nevada. Nevada with a 10 percent participation rate should be dropped from the Republican carve-out [for early states]. It is a worthless contest."

"They cost a lot of money and reach only a very small number of people."

"The time has passed for the caucus system. It has become a tool for party extremism."

"We need a nationwide primary, and may the best man or woman win in one day..."